Frequently Asked Questions

A broad coalition of agriculture, manufacturing, energy, labor, and transportation stakeholders oppose the proposed UP–NS merger because it would reduce competition, weaken service reliability, and raise shipping costs across large portions of the U.S. economy. Their concerns have been echoed by political leaders across the country.

Freight rail is already highly consolidated, with just a handful of Class I railroads controlling most of the traffic in the U.S. Combining two of the largest railroads would further concentrate market power, leaving many shippers with no meaningful alternatives if service declines or rates increase. Fewer competitive options harm supply chains, threaten jobs, and ultimately raise prices for consumers.

History suggests otherwise. Past rail megamergers have often led to service breakdowns, congestion, workforce reductions, and years-long recovery periods, with costs borne by shippers, workers, and consumers.

Rather than improving efficiency, excessive consolidation can reduce accountability and incentives to invest in capacity, safety, and customer service. That is why regulators have traditionally applied strict scrutiny to large rail mergers and why this coalition believes enhanced competition—not consolidation—is essential for a reliable freight rail network.

The proposed UP–NS merger would be the largest rail consolidation of its kind, carrying a price tag of more than $85 billion. Union Pacific claims the deal can be paid for through increased traffic—but the math doesn't support that argument.

Over the past decade, traffic volumes at both railroads have fallen, making it unlikely that there will be a sudden surge in volume to cover the cost of the merger. The far more likely outcome is that rail customers—and ultimately the broader U.S. economy—will be forced to absorb the cost.

• Businesses face higher rail rates and fewer routing options, increasing costs for agriculture, manufacturing, and energy production.
• Workers bear the burden through job cuts, reduced staffing, and pressure to do more with less as railroads chase short-term savings.
• Consumers ultimately pay through higher prices on food, fuel, building materials, and everyday goods that depend on rail transportation.

This merger fails the Surface Transportation Board's (STB) core requirement that major rail mergers enhance competition, not shrink it. This deal would hand nearly half of the nation's freight rail traffic to one company, which means less competition, higher costs, worse service, and fewer good rail jobs.

The STB must reject this unwanted, unnecessary and costly deal. Allowing this deal to move forward would lock in permanent damage to America's economy.